Intel to announce Coffee Lake during solar eclipse?

i5 becomes sex-core, i3 becomes tetra-core
so AMD has really fired them up
and claiming at least 11% performance boost over Kaby baby

but what about an i9? are they struggling to get many-core working at 14 nm?

On Sat, 19 Aug 2017 06:29:31 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

i5 becomes sex-core, i3 becomes tetra-core
so AMD has really fired them up
and claiming at least 11% performance boost over Kaby baby

but what about an i9? are they struggling to get many-core working at 14 nm?


I was building used, usually certified core pulls from outfits
sourcing volume green salvages. My last actual purchases were low-end
NewEgg processors, a Duron and a single-core AMD ages ago. Ebay used
processors became too advantageous and too close to running
effectively for almost nothing, free;- recently buying a $90 octal AMD
core, for me, was a total splurge. Perhaps my last one on Windows,
anyway. I really can't see myself going where Microsoft has gone with
the "terminal aspect" of an operating system, to monitor its endurser
habits, with more or less a stated attempt wholly to limit further
manipulation or customization unless endorsed by Windows. As well
what an older processor means, relatively to new, or a forgone
conclusion, as the current direction of Windows is to identify new
within hardware limits of standards and acceptability. I find the
whole construct among alternatives I may be facing a bit beyond
chilling -- rather like crawling out an open window in the middle of
the Siberian winter.

-
"[... during] epidemics of arrests when all around you they were
hauling in people like yourself and still had not come for you; for
some reason they were taking their time. After all, that kind of
exhaustion, that kind of suffering, is worse than any kind of arrest,
and not only for a person of limited courage.�
-- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956

On 19/08/2017 9:29 AM, wrote:
i5 becomes sex-core, i3 becomes tetra-core
so AMD has really fired them up
and claiming at least 11% performance boost over Kaby baby

It would be interesting seeing how they got an additional 11%
performance out of the core, when for years they couldn't? Or is it a
trick, where they may have improved QuickSync performance, which really
has nothing to do with the cores, it's a separate internal module?

but what about an i9? are they struggling to get many-core working at 14 nm?

They have a monolithic many-core, whereas AMD has multiple 8-core
modules, which will likely end up with higher yields than a single
monolithic 16-core for example. Would also result in a cheaper dice than
the monolithic core.


--
Sent from Giganews on Thunderbird on my Toshiba laptop

Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 19/08/2017 9:29 AM, wrote:
i5 becomes sex-core, i3 becomes tetra-core
so AMD has really fired them up
and claiming at least 11% performance boost over Kaby baby

It would be interesting seeing how they got an additional 11%
performance out of the core, when for years they couldn't?

It's a marketing ploy.

I don't think they're talking about single threaded performance.
They switch from two cores to four cores, then compare
how much performance they get in the same power footprint.
Something like that.

The rudder has kinda fallen off the Intel boat.

This core madness (ThreadRipper) serves to push the price
graph further up and to the right, so that "rich people have
more options". The process did push Intel to change how
they connect cores (grid instead of rings) on their
high-core-count products, and that's a good thing
(potential progress). But in terms of utility, people who
fall for the sales pitch and don't know what to do with
these things, are going to be disappointed. The desktop
will paint with the same old speed. Firefox will
open as slowly. And so on. This is not the switch from
a 300MHz Celeron (with no cache) to a 1400MHz Tualatin.

There are people, who will use these extra cores to advantage.
Workstation people. But for the bubblegum/Facebook crowd,
this is not for them. Gaming on a ThreadRipper, doesn't
seem to be that good a fit. Rendering a bunch of movies
at one time, might work well.

The i3 quad core *is* an improvement, in that the level of
background activity in Win10 is tending to swamp a dual core,
and in a sense, the quad core is merely keeping up with the
pace of "maintenance activity" on Win10. Three cores for
Microsoft, one core for you. I've tested Win10 on my single
core laptop, and it's OK as long as the network cable is
disconnected. On my current machine, running Win10 in VirtualBox
on this dual core, it tends to rail things. If I was
shopping for a hardware platform now, it would be four core
minimum (either 4C 4T or 4C 8T).

I think AMD could make more money off Raven Ridge AM4 (4C)
when it comes out, than off this other moon-shot stuff.
Raven Ridge will be available in laptops soon, so it'll
be possible to see benchmarks before the AM4 version shows
up for desktops. To see whether it's a bust or not. And the
delayed launch also gives time for a die respin, if there
was a need for one.

Paul

On 23/08/2017 12:54 PM, Paul wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 19/08/2017 9:29 AM, wrote:
i5 becomes sex-core, i3 becomes tetra-core
so AMD has really fired them up
and claiming at least 11% performance boost over Kaby baby

It would be interesting seeing how they got an additional 11%
performance out of the core, when for years they couldn't?

It's a marketing ploy.

I don't think they're talking about single threaded performance.
They switch from two cores to four cores, then compare
how much performance they get in the same power footprint.
Something like that.

The rudder has kinda fallen off the Intel boat.

Except they also had a separate benchmark for multithreaded performance,
and that was up as well (obviously, since there are more cores and
threads). Can't remember the percentage improvements for those.

The i3 quad core *is* an improvement, in that the level of
background activity in Win10 is tending to swamp a dual core,
and in a sense, the quad core is merely keeping up with the
pace of "maintenance activity" on Win10. Three cores for
Microsoft, one core for you. I've tested Win10 on my single
core laptop, and it's OK as long as the network cable is
disconnected. On my current machine, running Win10 in VirtualBox
on this dual core, it tends to rail things. If I was
shopping for a hardware platform now, it would be four core
minimum (either 4C 4T or 4C 8T).

I think the Core i3 is the biggest beneficiary from this. It was being
severely squeezed from all sides in its pricing category. It was being
squeezed by the Ryzen 3 from above, and from Pentium from below. This
past generation of i3 was the first where reviewers were actively
telling people to not buy the i3 and instead get a Pentium.

A quad-core i3 will put it on par with a Ryzen 3.

Yousuf Khan


--
Sent from Giganews on Thunderbird on my Toshiba laptop

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:54:10 AM UTC+8, Paul wrote:

There are people, who will use these extra cores to advantage.
Workstation people. But for the bubblegum/Facebook crowd,
this is not for them. Gaming on a ThreadRipper, doesn't
seem to be that good a fit. Rendering a bunch of movies
at one time, might work well.


Tommy's Hardware had a full review of the Ripper, and yes it was not so hot
for gaming, but awesome for geophysical number crunching. Possibly how the
parallel processing is implemented in these different arenas.

On 27/08/2017 5:58 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:54:10 AM UTC+8, Paul wrote:

There are people, who will use these extra cores to advantage.
Workstation people. But for the bubblegum/Facebook crowd,
this is not for them. Gaming on a ThreadRipper, doesn't
seem to be that good a fit. Rendering a bunch of movies
at one time, might work well.


Tommy's Hardware had a full review of the Ripper, and yes it was not so hot
for gaming, but awesome for geophysical number crunching. Possibly how the
parallel processing is implemented in these different arenas.


The people doing the most work with multi-core/multi-threaded processors
is the guys making the latest Doom and Wolfenstein games. The new
Wolfenstein is apparently able to use every thread and core of the
Threadrippers, which is amazing!


--
Sent from Giganews on Thunderbird on my Toshiba laptop

On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 11:46:31 AM UTC+8, Yousuf Khan wrote:


The people doing the most work with multi-core/multi-threaded processors
is the guys making the latest Doom and Wolfenstein games. The new
Wolfenstein is apparently able to use every thread and core of the
Threadrippers, which is amazing!


Great that somebody is capable of supporting it. I presume the "game mode"
for Threadripper was putting it all one one die, with no SMT.

wrote:
On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 11:46:31 AM UTC+8, Yousuf Khan wrote:

The people doing the most work with multi-core/multi-threaded processors
is the guys making the latest Doom and Wolfenstein games. The new
Wolfenstein is apparently able to use every thread and core of the
Threadrippers, which is amazing!


Great that somebody is capable of supporting it. I presume the "game mode"
for Threadripper was putting it all one one die, with no SMT.

I wonder how practical that is ? Games don't typically
parallelize all that well. Most games have a boss thread
that runs a core at 100%. And the rest of the processes
or threads are a joke. The only thing that divides nicely
is "Fritz Chess" (move generator) :-)

Paul